Posts

Do you want to be like Kuro5hin? Because this is how you get to be like Kuro5hin. 2016-08-26T15:32:52.823Z · score: 33 (33 votes)

Comments

Comment by dentin on Kialo -- an online discussion platform that attempts to support reasonable debates · 2017-11-06T12:32:20.894Z · score: 0 (2 votes) · LW · GW

Off the top of my head I'd say it's doomed to forever be a minor niche platform, because what the general public wants is not "reasonable debate". They want drama, and reasonable debate doesn't provide that.

sigh

Comment by dentin on Yudkowsky's 'Four Layers of Intellectual Conversation' · 2017-01-12T15:48:37.768Z · score: 3 (3 votes) · LW · GW

TL/DR based on my understanding: You can tell whether a participant in a conversation is serious based on how they respond to criticism. This effectively means a three way handshake: poster, critique, rebuttal. For a serious conversation with serious critics, this means that at least four layers must be present in order to cover both sides: poster, critique, rebuttal, critique rebuttal. The rebuttal shows that the poster is serious; the critique rebuttal shows that the critique is serious. These four layers are referred to as layers 0 through 3.

Unfortunately, in most common web discourse, we typically only see layer 0, and sometimes layer 1. In academic discourse, we often see layer 2, but not layer 3, which usually means that the criticism either isn't serious or isn't very good. Places which do show evidence of all four layers are generally more healthy in terms of conversation.

There's more to it and a lot of good examples, but knowing the above up front may make it easier to frame.

Comment by dentin on Communication is violent by nature · 2016-11-15T02:06:50.960Z · score: 2 (2 votes) · LW · GW

Downvoting as incoherent and objectively wrong. Also because bad grammar.

Comment by dentin on The New Little Ice Age Has Started (2016) · 2016-11-07T17:51:16.072Z · score: 2 (2 votes) · LW · GW

Multiple reasons: one paper does not science make, this is a very political topic, the paper is highly likely to be wrong, and the title is sensationalist. Downvoting due to poor quality.

Comment by dentin on Do you want to be like Kuro5hin? Because this is how you get to be like Kuro5hin. · 2016-08-26T17:34:24.224Z · score: 17 (17 votes) · LW · GW

They probably could, but that ends up being a very toil-based setup as new targets are found and selected. I wouldn't consider this anything more than a short term stopgap.

As an example, even if Elo was protected, it's pretty clear the eugine is willing to downvote anyone who comments on Elo material.

Comment by dentin on Open thread, Jul. 25 - Jul. 31, 2016 · 2016-07-30T14:52:46.598Z · score: 3 (3 votes) · LW · GW

This has gotten bad enough that it needs to be dealt with. I have changed my mind; removing downvotes entirely seems like the best way to handle this in the short term.

Comment by dentin on The Thyroid Madness : Core Argument, Evidence, Probabilities and Predictions · 2016-03-19T21:07:50.467Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

My apologies, I misread your intent. I thought that you were attempting to get feedback on what appears to be a viable hypothesis for improving the lives of a large number of people with debilitating diseases. I thought you were lining up ducks, proofing your arguments, improving probabilities, and investigating attack vectors to possibly make the world suck less. I thought you were trying to Win :P

I have mentioned these harmless conclusions in order to get people to think that the idea might be more important than it seems on the face of it.

In this, for me at least, you have succeeded. However, you have not (yet) made a convincing enough case for me to burn my resources pushing it. This is a low probability, high reward scenario. Convince me that this is worth dropping other important things, as my time is limited.

If [extremist thought experiments] make me easier to refute or disbelieve, that is a good thing.

If your plan is to Win, and in order to Win you need to convince others, then it is a very dangerous, risky, and often counterproductive strategy.

If you have the right sort of friends, approach them with whatever version of this argument you think you need to get them to think about it. If they can think, they will draw all my conclusions for themselves in a few weeks.

If they can't, I don't care about their opinion, there are plenty like them in the world, they will believe whatever someone eminent tells them is true, as long as it is not too scary.

I not only have the right sort of friends, I have the sort of friends that are in the "someone eminent" category that could help your idea gain significant traction. However, those friends have massive demands on their time, and none are so superhuman that they could investigate every probable idea. Do I ask a friend to drop work on treating respiratory disease with ChlorHex oral rinse to investigate your idea? Can I in good conscience argue that it would be worthwhile? At the moment, I cannot.

So again, what is it that you're trying to do? This topic is clearly near and dear to your heart, and you've got a workable combination of incentive and intelligence to make sure this gets investigated fully, for better or for worse. However, the road is long and arduous, and it will likely require you to interface with others and swallow your pride if you truly want to Win and succeed.

On the other hand, if you just want to philosophize, then by all means carry on.

Comment by dentin on The Thyroid Madness : Core Argument, Evidence, Probabilities and Predictions · 2016-03-19T00:07:50.450Z · score: 3 (3 votes) · LW · GW

To increase the credibility of the article, IMHO you need to ditch pretty much the entire "SOME SELECTED POSSIBLE IMPLICATIONS / PREDICTIONS" section. Reading through that, it sounds very much like you're trying to solve unrelated problems with your newly found hammer:

Dieting - you're not really predicting anything here. Turn it into a prediction of some sort or it's just dead weight.

Diabetes - you've got no evidence for any kind of common hormone suppression mechanism, and my understanding of how hormone chemistry works places the probability of a common mechanism at 'pretty damn low'. Occam's razor says you should prune this.

Heart disease - if this was once an indicator, you could instead propose a "weak prediction" that heart disease may be more prevalent across the broad spectrum of disorders you're trying to link.

Smoking - prune this as well for 1) lack of evidence 2) the fact that smoking has so many harmful effects that it will completely swamp your signal, and 3) the fact that smoking is still highly politicized and it's likely to mindkill your audience. It doesn't contribute to or strengthen your case, rather it (strongly) indicates that you're trying too hard to pattern match your model. Leaving this in pretty much screams 'crackpot'.

Regarding what you have to say to get someone to look at it seriously: stick to the facts, form a model, prune dead weight, make predictions, publicize your predictions in a centralized consistent location, research your predictions and see if they pan out, and publish. Address criticism, fix issues, make contacts, update your model and predictions and republish. There are anonymized medical databases that can be used for at least some of your research. I do not know how mortals get access to them, but I do know they exist. What you have right now is barely at the hypothesis stage.

TL/DR - formalize your model, use that model to make predictions, publicize those predictions so you can't cheat, test those predictions, lather, rinse, repeat. If you can put this together in a sufficiently coherent way, I can get a few people to look at it.

Comment by dentin on How It Feels to Improve My Rationality · 2016-03-18T18:58:58.349Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

This all seems pretty ordinary and uncontroversial to me. It's about what I'd expect when 'doing it right'.

Comment by dentin on AlphaGo versus Lee Sedol · 2016-03-13T16:25:07.429Z · score: 2 (2 votes) · LW · GW

Update: given the most recent win by Lee Sodol, my hypothesis above seems much less likely. AlphaGo may only be in the 3600-3800 range.

Comment by dentin on AlphaGo versus Lee Sedol · 2016-03-12T17:19:45.670Z · score: 2 (2 votes) · LW · GW

Honestly that hundred point difference at the top of the Go ratings isn't really going to matter. At best, it probably means that the top player has a ten percent chance of winning a single game, instead of a two percent chance. I wouldn't be surprised at all to hear that AlphaGo is playing at a rating in excess of four thousand, and could be expected to beat the best human players 99% of the time. Frankly, my gut instinct watching the livestream is that AlphaGo is playing at such a high level that even the players at the top of the rankings are having a hard time identifying it.

It must be very frustrating to be in that position - you're supposedly one of the best in the world, and for the first half of the game your opponent makes mostly ok but not great moves including some likely mistakes and weird moves that seem pointless. Then near endgame you've somehow ended up 20 points behind with no hope of victory and you're not even sure how it happened.

Comment by dentin on Does Kolmogorov complexity imply a bound on self-improving AI? · 2016-02-15T16:13:47.085Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

Keep in mind that adding a 'random number' instruction to a turing machine allows it to create output of infinite complexity, and that pretty much all compute hardware these days contains a hard RNG based on quantum randomness.

Comment by dentin on The Fable of the Burning Branch · 2016-02-12T15:01:29.153Z · score: 0 (2 votes) · LW · GW

I suspect it's because infrequent old members like myself only check the site every couple of days. I didn't upvote because the fable was good; I upvoted because I felt the author was being unfairly penalized by the downvoting.

Comment by dentin on The Fable of the Burning Branch · 2016-02-12T14:58:12.084Z · score: 2 (2 votes) · LW · GW

When I reverse the genders, or make the branch lifters those with blonde hair, the story still works. I disagree with your statement.

Comment by dentin on The Fable of the Burning Branch · 2016-02-12T14:56:45.477Z · score: -2 (2 votes) · LW · GW

Of course not. My point was that people are taking it personally, are taking it as a personal attack on something they identify with. But the reality is that it's not about them.

Comment by dentin on The Fable of the Burning Branch · 2016-02-12T02:37:12.139Z · score: -2 (4 votes) · LW · GW

IMHO the 'attempted rape' claim is far more interpretation than substance - an interpretation that is specious at best.

Comment by dentin on The Fable of the Burning Branch · 2016-02-12T02:35:06.798Z · score: 0 (2 votes) · LW · GW

I can see a reference to rape in the second to last paragraph if I squint real hard and look at it through rape-colored glasses, but when I take the glasses off or stop squinting it simply doesn't look like rape anymore.

Comment by dentin on The Fable of the Burning Branch · 2016-02-12T02:30:13.383Z · score: 0 (14 votes) · LW · GW

OP Upvoted.

It's been stated elsewhere that a long standing member of the LW community was leaving because of this post. Well, to counterbalance that, I'm also strongly considering leaving LW, but it's not because of the OP. It's because of these comment threads.

In particular, the comments have shown me just how far the LW community has fallen. I'd really rather not be around people who both get offended so easily and are so willing to mindkill themselves should the slightest opportunity present itself. FYI, the OP isn't about you. It's not about your pet projects. It's not insulting everything you stand for. You're just not that important.

Five years ago, this post would likely have died a simple, unglorious death by being too vague or poorly written to be upvoted. Today it causes a political shitstorm as the community decides to interpret it in a way directly contrary to the stated goal of author. Five years ago, it would have been discussed rationally, the writer would have received tips and suggestions, and quite likely some good would have been drawn out of it. Today, it causes mass mindkilling because people feel that their identity is being attacked.

Those are the kinds of people I don't wish to be around.

Comment by dentin on The Fable of the Burning Branch · 2016-02-12T02:09:41.255Z · score: -1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

Why would you interpret it this way, when there are more charitable and better fitting interpretations? Not everything has to be about gender.

Comment by dentin on The Fable of the Burning Branch · 2016-02-12T02:08:22.307Z · score: 0 (4 votes) · LW · GW

The metaphor doesn't even make sense, assuming it's about sex.

So don't assume it's about sex. The author stated as much.

Comment by dentin on The Fable of the Burning Branch · 2016-02-12T02:07:36.637Z · score: 1 (3 votes) · LW · GW

This post just doesn't really reflect real life. Well, not for all sides involved.

In my experience, good parables seldom reflect real life. They reflect a distorted, amplified caricature, so as to better make a point that might be missed with a more realistic story.

Also, I think you're on the right track with defeatism and depression.

Comment by dentin on The Fable of the Burning Branch · 2016-02-12T02:02:20.946Z · score: -2 (6 votes) · LW · GW

It only elevates sexual choices to life-and-death if you choose to interpret it that way. I did not. I chose to interpret it as about depression.

Comment by dentin on The Fable of the Burning Branch · 2016-02-12T01:59:42.392Z · score: -2 (4 votes) · LW · GW

Plaintext reading of the metaphor suggests attempted rape? WTF?

Comment by dentin on Your transhuman copy is of questionable value to your meat self. · 2016-01-10T23:22:28.144Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

I appear to hold a lot of the same views as Usul, so I'll chime in here.

I could have even made you waffle back and forth by repeatedly telling you that I lied.

You could, but since I don't privilege the original or the copy, it wouldn't matter. You can swap the labels all day long and it still wouldn't affect the fact that the 'copy' and the 'original' are both still me. No matter how many times Pluto gains or loses its "planet" status, it's still the same ball of ice and rock.

I'll go one step further than the pattern theorists and say that I am both, even after our experiences diverge, as long as we don't diverge too far (where 'too far' is up to my/our personal preference.)

Comment by dentin on Your transhuman copy is of questionable value to your meat self. · 2016-01-10T22:55:36.644Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

Sophie Pascal's Choice: yes. If it were an easy, painless death, the required reward would probably have to be on the order of about ten dollars, to make up for the inconvenience to my time. If it were not a painless death, I'd probably require more, but not a huge amount more.

Comment by dentin on Kant's Multiplication · 2015-09-19T18:25:15.988Z · score: -2 (2 votes) · LW · GW

You lost me at ethical. The proposed situation is simple enough that you should define all the pieces and slap down your Schelling fences instead of trying to paste arbitrary labels on it.

Comment by dentin on Is my brain a utility minimizer? Or, the mechanics of labeling things as "work" vs. "fun" · 2015-08-28T02:13:55.475Z · score: 2 (2 votes) · LW · GW

Off the cuff: perhaps you've got it backwards?

I've thought about this as well, but my observation ended up going a different direction: work as a category only has higher utility because it's unfun in some way. Everyone else would rather be doing fun things, but the unfun stuff needed for survival still has to get done somehow. Work generally has higher utility because other people are willing to pay you to do it so they can do the fun things instead.

Comment by dentin on Vegetarianism Ideological Turing Test! · 2015-08-11T14:28:59.231Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

Omnivore:

1) This is two questions. I think that lowering the current level of meat consumption would probably improve health in America, but not by huge amounts. I don't have much evidence to back this belief in minor improvement, but there is a lot of evidence against it being a major improvement.

Regarding the planet, no, I don't think its a problem. At all.

2) I don't really care as long as it's cheap, lean, tastes good, and has reasonable quality control. Ideally, meat should be grown in vats so we can tailor it better.

3) Probably not. Issues of consent become important as you get into self-aware creatures, so it's more complicated than just yes/no.

4) Yes. I already have to go out of my way to eat meat because it's ridiculously expensive, and I've been known to go to obscure shops for specific things I can't get elsewhere.

Vegetarian:

1) Lab grown meat: yes, as long as it tasted good, wasn't too expensive, and was satisfying.

2) Natural to eat meat: yes, obviously. We can eat, digest, and draw nutrition from vast quantities of meat without issue, and eating meat regularly is something 90% of all humans can do without problems. To say that it's unnatural is just crazy.

3) It's my business what other people eat to the extent that it affects me: in other words, not very much. I usually suggest people improve their eating habits because it makes my world better. Sick people aren't as awesome to be around as healthy people.

4) My understanding is that it's the calorie density and iron intake that are the primary health issues with meat. People tend to eat a lot of really fatty meat in one setting, which is a pretty serious calorie load. The extra iron shaves a handful of months off overall lifespan via fairly well understood mechanisms.

Comment by dentin on Test Driven Thinking · 2015-07-27T20:14:39.150Z · score: 0 (2 votes) · LW · GW

As an atheist, I answer the question "Do gods exist?" by saying "With the evidence we have right now, it is most likely that they do not."

Comment by dentin on Catastrophe Engines: A possible resolution to the Fermi Paradox · 2015-07-27T14:35:11.857Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

Before we go further:

  • What specific observations and evidence does your idea explain, other than the Fermi paradox?

  • What specific observations and evidence, if we had them, would invalidate your idea?

Comment by dentin on Catastrophe Engines: A possible resolution to the Fermi Paradox · 2015-07-26T21:00:29.820Z · score: 2 (2 votes) · LW · GW

1) Postulates exotic physics and/or requires a change to the laws of physics to be possible. Low probability.

2) Postulates bad design and something that the builders would work to minimize. Low probability.

3) Postulates additional exotic physics that are likely different from 1) and don't really even make sense giving the vastness of space. Very low probability.

The search space of ideas is incredibly large, and we don't find solutions by picking ideas at random and testing them. Instead, we focus on the ideas that seem most reasonably plausible, and test those first. There are a LOT of ideas that are more reasonably plausible than catastrophe engines as described above.

Given what I know about physics, I actually find "we're the first intelligent technological life in the universe" to be more likely than catastrophe engines.

Comment by dentin on (Rational) website design and cognitive aesthetics generally- why no uptake? · 2015-07-23T22:24:59.855Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

Yeah, that mobilitywod site annoys me as well. It's a big part of what I hate about modern 'web apps'.

Comment by dentin on (Rational) website design and cognitive aesthetics generally- why no uptake? · 2015-07-23T22:23:14.473Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

Keep in mind that not all targets are the same. Two examples:

http://craigslist.org - designed above all else to be useful. The aesthetic that matters here is 'useful'.

http://alteraeon.com - small static pages designed to work well with blind/visually impaired screen readers.

Comment by dentin on You are (mostly) a simulation. · 2015-07-20T14:40:10.820Z · score: 2 (2 votes) · LW · GW

Nope, you're pretty much bang-on here. The stuff being discussed has no observables and no practical applications. Mostly, it appears to be a way for the author to feel better about the topic, as he claims to be prone to panic attacks and existential anxiety.

Comment by dentin on You are (mostly) a simulation. · 2015-07-18T19:44:00.288Z · score: 0 (2 votes) · LW · GW

If you were concerned about jumping and jumping was merely 'extremely difficult to observe', that would probably be ok.

However, if you can't observe jumping by definition and are still concerned about it, that's called a 'cognitive defect', and you should fix it. Fix the cognitive defect, that is. The one in your head. The one that's making you be irrationally concerned over a defined unobservable.

No amount of handwaving, being concerned, or liking your current 'subjective reality' is going to make your unobservable observable. Fix the core problem, don't try to paper over it.

Comment by dentin on You are (mostly) a simulation. · 2015-07-17T15:46:06.509Z · score: 5 (5 votes) · LW · GW

I consider it bad form to do such a massive rewrite, thereby obsoleting the entire previous comment stream.

Regarding your new post, I think you need to taboo the word 'measure' and rewrite all your posts without it. It would make things much more clear for the rest of us. When communicating with others, it is more important to be clear and precise than it is to be compact, and your use of 'measure' is neither clear nor precise to a good number of your audience.

Comment by dentin on I need a protocol for dangerous or disconcerting ideas. · 2015-07-15T17:40:00.714Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

Dreaming is a very specific process that seems optimized to the scenario I described with DT. Do these other ideas predict the same?

"Dreaming is a very specific process that seems optimized to demonstrate the existence of a dream realm."

"Dreaming is a very specific process that seems optimized to recharge the Earth Spirit that is Mother Gaia."

"Dreaming is a very specific process by which Wyvren allows us to communicate with Legends."

So you are saying that humans or humanlike minds are the most common type of consciousness that is mathematically possible?

I have literally no idea how you could possibly draw that conclusion from the statement that dreaming has a mundane physics-based explanation. The two things aren't even remotely related.

Comment by dentin on I need a protocol for dangerous or disconcerting ideas. · 2015-07-15T15:39:52.376Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

Sorry, but evidence doesn't really work that way. Even if we allow it, it is exceptionally weak evidence, and not enough to distinguish 'dust theory' from any other of the countless ideas in that same category. Again, it looks to me like a tack-on to the original idea that is needed simply to make the idea compatible with existing evidence.

As for why we dream, it's actually because of particles, forces, and biochemistry. A mundane explanation for a mundane process. No group hive mind of spirit energy or "measure of beings" required.

Comment by dentin on I need a protocol for dangerous or disconcerting ideas. · 2015-07-15T15:28:27.752Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

That's what I figured. If anything, I'd say that this is your core issue, not dust theory. Your sense of subjective self just doesn't map well onto what it's actually possible to do, so of course you're going to get garbage results from time to time.

Comment by dentin on I need a protocol for dangerous or disconcerting ideas. · 2015-07-15T04:03:40.538Z · score: 2 (2 votes) · LW · GW

I suspect part of the issue here is that your concept of subjective self isn't constructed to be compatible with these kinds of thought experiments, or with the idea that reality may be forking and terminating all the time. I can say that because mine -is- compatible with such things, and as a result pretty much all of this category of problem doesn't even show up on my radar.

Assuming I had a magical copying device that could copy my body at a sufficient accuracy, I could:

  • use the copier to create a copy of myself, and as the copy I could do the household chores then self destruct to free up resources without worrying about my 'self' dying.

  • use the copier to create a copy of myself, then as the original go do the chores/self destruct without worrying about my 'self' dying.

  • if there was a resource conflict which required the destruction of a copy, I could decide that I was the 'least important' copy and self terminate without worrying about my 'self' dying.

When a person's sense of identity can do the above things, concerns about your dust scenario really don't even show up as relevant - it doesn't matter which timeline or state you end up in, so long as your self is active somewhere, you're good.

How would you treat the above situations?

Comment by dentin on I need a protocol for dangerous or disconcerting ideas. · 2015-07-15T03:50:22.902Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

That doesn't even remotely meet the bar for 'evidence' from my standpoint. At best, you could say that it's a tack-on to the original idea to make it match reality better.

Put another way, it's not evidence that makes the idea more likely, it's an addition that increases the complexity yet still leaves you in a state where there are no observables to test or falsify anything.

In common terms, that's called a 'net loss'.

Comment by dentin on I need a protocol for dangerous or disconcerting ideas. · 2015-07-15T03:42:14.741Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

I get the feeling you guys should read up on timeless qm, which basically avoids all of these problems and questions by treating reality as a static 'crystal' of related events with no time component. If you're going to be talking about stuff near the floor, you might as well go all the way instead of using inaccurate hacks.

Comment by dentin on I need a protocol for dangerous or disconcerting ideas. · 2015-07-15T03:36:09.675Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

So the body that gets left behind, is it a p-zombie? If not, why not?

Comment by dentin on I need a protocol for dangerous or disconcerting ideas. · 2015-07-13T13:58:25.119Z · score: 4 (4 votes) · LW · GW

It's not a theory, it's not even a hypothesis - it's an idea. The bar for theory and hypothesis is far above what 'dust theory' can manage at this point.

Comment by dentin on I need a protocol for dangerous or disconcerting ideas. · 2015-07-13T13:56:45.741Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

What is your empirical evidence for dust theory?

Comment by dentin on I need a protocol for dangerous or disconcerting ideas. · 2015-07-13T13:48:55.739Z · score: 2 (4 votes) · LW · GW

I'm pretty sure I understand your specific argument regarding dust theory. I'm also pretty sure that the reason I'm not upset is because I require observables to actually care about things like that. You're worried about an idea/argument that has no backing evidence, makes no observable predictions, and is unfalsifiable - no matter how horrible it sounds, it isn't sane to fret over that sort of thing.

Also, I would encourage you to spend some time on the concept of identity for yourself. Even if your idea/argument did have backing evidence, it wouldn't be horrible to me because I allow distributed identity.

Comment by dentin on The Consequences of Dust Theory. · 2015-07-13T13:37:53.275Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

If I understand this correctly, your 'measure' also increases when you close your eyes. Why should your 'measure' be any different just because you think you're receiving photons from what you think is probably an external source?

At this point, I'm going to just say that I don't think anyone can help you. It doesn't matter what universe you happen to find yourself in at any given moment if you can't tell the difference between them. I suspect you're probably just going to have to work your confusion out on your own.

Comment by dentin on The Consequences of Dust Theory. · 2015-07-11T17:10:57.940Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

Your mind, which is constructed out of particles, forces, and fields, has generated a subjective reality which is a map of how the universe works. Because your brain is not static, your map changes pretty much continuously.

I think it would be a good idea to define what you mean by 'measure'. I do not understand your usage of it in the above, and I have no reasonable way to interpret things like "my measure will shrink during my sleep and join a larger one upon waking". That phrase makes literally no sense to me at this time.

Comment by dentin on Effective Altruism from XYZ perspective · 2015-07-10T19:53:58.687Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

That's unfortunate. There can be no sacred values. That way lies madness.

Comment by dentin on Effective Altruism from XYZ perspective · 2015-07-10T19:51:28.717Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

I never actually realized that 'all humans have roughly equal intrinsic value' was a core tenet of EA.